Aesthetics: Brass Knucks

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Mr. M. Robert Cole is right. I have not distinguished between a movie which arouses prejudice and one which merely offends the arbitrarily imposed moral standards of a minority group. If the CRIMSON had printed the full text of my letter . . .

The fact that "Oliver Twist" is a "sensitive and powerful" movie is unsurpassable as a reason for not prohibiting it anywhere.

If Mr. Coles has a theory of aesthetics, it apparently is one which admits the moral content of a work of art to be a valid basis for criticizing it. There are several schools of theory ensconced in this opinion; one of them centers in Moscow. I do not share this opinion. As long as a work of art is not conscious propaganda, its criticism must be amoral. The criterion should be: is this a sensitive and powerful expression of the artist's feeling? Right, wrong, social value, middle-class morality etc. should never enter into artistic criticism. Granted, artists are deeply concerned with moral issues: their concern should not concern us expect insofar as it contributes to the aesthetic value. "Forever Amber" and "Shore Leave" can and should be condemned only from this aesthetic standpoint, any other criticisms must be recognized as moral ones. Morality is the brass knuckles of artistic criticism . . .

As a man with the blood of several persecuted minorities coursing through his veins, I feel I may express myself on this subject. Paul W. Friedrich '49